Alright, good morning everyone, let's see the posts before Chapter 51:
@[totally a legit person] - Please, friend, do feel free to present your suggestions. I liked everyone of them in the previous post, rabbit hole or not. I hadn't considered the possibility of an independent Normandy, but it is an interesting one. To be fair, I only wanted an independent Aquitaine/Occitania to explore divergences concerning a continued Mediterranean socioeconomic predominance in the general European situation, because, IOTL, the axis of economic relevance gradually "went up" to the Northern Europe.
The Iberian powers will most certainly be heavily transformed by the contact with a revived "Occitania".
And good insights about Burgundy, it has been somewhat neglected here so far, but I'll be thinking of some things to explore concerning it.
Well, it might be the end of indipendence for Edessa, but for Baldwin and his successors there might be still a future career in the Empire if would play they cards well. And I guess a period of duress for the Latins after the triumph of Damascus would be necessary. At least they would hold well. So, Homs is expected to be the new contended area between Crusaders and the Islamic coalition now...
The sword of Islam may have reaped the booty of swift plunder, but I bet a good fortress and staging point would've been of more use against the Christian armies. Wonder if Homs will end up in Christian hands after all is said and done...
Indeed, you both predicted something that we saw happen exactly in the latest chapter. I suppose that, in hindsight, we could consider the annexation of Homs would be inevitable, considering that sooner or later the Crusaders would want to terminate this one last remnant of Islamic regime in Syria.
Didn’t John II launch a campaign around this time IOTL? I’m guessing that with full crusader cooperation (and the fact that the campaign IOTL was seeking to conquer cities that had already been conquered here) that John will have a much better time than IOTL. It’s a damn shame that Edessa suffered such a cruel fate, at least part of it will live on in the empire.
To be fair, I had genuinely considered the possibility of a longer lasting County of Edessa in ITTL, but, when I saw the direction I was going with the Second Crusade, I realized it wouldn't make much sense. Edessa was not only the most distant of the Crusader States, it was actually the weakest one, with a poor manpower base and geographically isolated. Even now that Byzantium, by its own effort, happened to "border" it, its survival was completely dependent on the passiveness of the Muslims, and, ITTL, they were driven into action after Damascus fell. In my head, it worked as well as a domino effect.
I didn't fully realize until this TL, that the survival of the Roman Empire would have been dependent from the Crusader survival. But I also wonder, once neutralized the Sunni threats (Turks, Iraqi and Egyptians), maybe passed the Mongol wave (always if they would even arrive... probably yes because if in the 1220's there would be news of a rich Roman Empire and a rich Kingdom of Jerusalem, they may be interested to seize them, especially if in a century from the current age of the TL, Baghdad would be reached by Christian armies and well plunder it)... Well, they may turn against each other. Just image a Latin conquered Egypt, if would ever be in the cards... Don't you think an ambitious Basileus would try to unite the Eastern Roman Empire for good?
I suppose one ambitious Emperor might attempt to restore the ERE to its old borders, but, overall, it would be an unecessary and counterproductive effort. The Byzantines, for all the criticism they warranted IOTL, proved to be fairly adaptive to the circumstances, throughout the whole of their history, from the fall of the WRE to the Fourth Crusade. We saw historically Manuel's attempts of restablishing their provinces in southern Italy, and projects to take Egypt together with the Crusaders, but, overall, those did more harm than good. Basically what @
Skallagrim and
@TyranicusMaximus say in the later posts.
Now, it is almost certain that the very first opponent of Crusader expansionism will actually be the Byzantine Empire, especially once the Franks go into rather "sensitive" flash-point areas, most notably Egypt, as you mentioned. On the other hand, it is also easy to see how Byzantines and Latins, even after Egypt, can reach a mutually agreeable accommodation, especially if we see some immediate Islamic threat in Mesopotamia.
I have some doubts on these prospects.
The Mongols are probably still coming in some form, although that depends on how you treat the butterflies. With a POD as early as this TL's (1099) you can easily maintain that the brith of Temüjin (1162) is butterflied. 163 years is enough to affect the destiny of individual trade caravans etc. -- which would all cause minor buuterflies, causing all sorts of people to be in slightly different places at slightly different times in their day-to-day lives (even if the general arc of their lives remains similar). This means that even if the guy's parents get together, a different sperm fertilises a different egg, probably at a different date. Thus: different kid. Given how unique Genghis Khan was, this then basically means a "no Genghis Khan" scenario. One may argue that the time was right for someone to unite the Mongols (and I'd agree: Genghis Khan had rivals who sought to do the same thing he did), but I think few of them could have done it on his unprecedented scale. So: you get massive raids into Persia, but not a Khanate that comes to reach Baghdad and even beyond.
Naturally,
@Rdffigueira can also deliberately go a but more conservative on the butterflies, and keep distant events largely or entirely unchanged until a
demonstrable causal change would result in changes.
Then you keep Genghis Khan. But even then, I have my doubts about the abilities of the Khanate to by really effective against the Byzantines and the Crusaders. Against such a foe, those two would be united. The Khanate was already operating near its limit of effective action when it reached Baghdad in OTL. That it could so effectively crush Baghdad has more to do with several underlying factors. For starters, once you already have Persia knocked out, Baghdad is far more vulnerable. For another thing, Baghdad itself is not in a very good position for a defence against such a foe. And finally, the Abbasid Caliphate -- though eagerly reforming at the time -- had not yet had the time needed to really finish any of those reforms. The state was weakened. If the attack had come 50 years later, things would have been a bit different...
Similarly, the Mongols had great results when penetrating into eastern Anatolia, because they found a mess of warring statelets. Against a united Byzantine Empire (quite possibly with a united, bulked-up Armenia to its east, if I'm predicting the TL correctly), things would not be that easy. And the Byzantines, Armenians and Latins could all co-ordinate their efforts. What are the Mongols going to due? Grueling mountain warfare against well-prepared, well-entrenched foes who have some strategic depth? Or a grueling attack on Jerusalem straight across the Syrian desert? Neither sounds like the set-up for a brilliant success.
And in OTL, the Mongols offered peace and alliance with the Crusaders against the Muslims. That may come up here as well, since Crusaders in in a stronger position will be able to profitably
exploit such an alliance in order to increase their own holdings. And by the time the Muslims have been thoroughly dealt with... well, if they could, the Mongols would then turn on the Christians, but my guess is that by then, the Mongols will be in the early stages of fracture/collapse already. New offensives won't be in the cards.
The idea that Baghdad will be reached by the Crusaders is also iffy to me. I doubt they'll get that far. Such a campaign would be more costly than can be justified. But then, I, a decided proponent of the "
secure western Syria, then secure Egypt, then go all-out on a North African Reconquista" strategy for these ATL Crusades. Reconquer the old Roman borders, and make Islam a purely eastern religion. That would be
my goal, in the Crusader position.
Finally, the notion of the Byzantines trying to re-unite the old ERE's holdings: forget it. Okay, a moron on the throne may try. But it wouldn't work. The Byzantines are between the Catholic Crusaders and the Catholics of Europe. An attempt to conquer the former would cause a two-front war wit the other. And the Byzantines would lose that war. It would be terrible for all involved, but they'd lose in the end. A sensible ruler knows that. Better to exploit good relations and make a smart play for profitable trade concessions all over the place. Byzantine emporia in Egypt, baby!
Excellent post, thank you very much!!
Well, on the Mongols subject, to cut to the chase: Genghis Khan will happen exactly as IOTL. As you pointed in the third paragraph, my point here is to work with more conservative butterflies, and not "chaos theory" causality. This frees me of the burden of having to explain plausible circumstances that produced the conclusion X, all while replicating historical events unaffected by the POD is easier and, from one perspective, more interesting, because it permits us to see how the "real life" events will interact with the counterfactual ones.
You raise an interesting point, from what I gather, about the exaggeration of the Mongol invincibility, when you mention that they might not fare well against a Byzantine/Crusade coalition. A fair argument, and one with which I agree. However, I once again bid that we await to discuss the implications of such events to latter moments, as they are well further down the TL.
One thing I can anticipate is that I am less interested in exploring the military and political expansion of the Mongols than I am with assessing the concept of the "
Pax Mongolica". What I mean is: the Mongol expansion will be very similar to OTL (albeit not exactly the same), and this is an unchanged premise, but the
consequences of the Mongol establishment in Asia will produce very significant divergences down the line.
while I agree with a large part of this I not so sure on the last. I don't think it be a 2 front war at all because of ultimatly it just some state across the ocean and why get into a massive war to protect a sea across the sea especially if you have your own stuff to do and wars to prosecute. So if the Byzantines do delcare war on the crusaders I don't see as realistic to suddenly except all of christodem to jump in arms for the crusaders especially if it between fellow christians. There are no formal alliance and the main reason crusades happen is out of religious zeal and as church influence start to wain there become less reason and has attention start to move to focus on other areas with leveant being seen as Christian hands.
Agreed. Besides, a war involving Byzantium and the Crusader State won't necessarily be a full-fledged total war of destruction/conquest; it could very well be a minor affair to solve one dispute before both parties come to good sense. Even if some Byzantine Emperor comes to defeat the Franks in the battlefield, he'll know that their positioning in the Levant is more convenient to the Empire than their absence, or even worse, than incurring in the inconveniences of a direct imperial administration.
it will possibly be much more than that, the cultures of the "barbarians" would be assimilated and then be used to defeat Hungary and not only reverse its growth and outside influenced, but with the talent of the Komenoi turn it into an effective "client-state" or an "forced alliance" to protect the northern flank.
Would the Romans really want to risk creating a truly imperial power? Last two times they did that the Arabs and Turks respectively took it from them. In fact the last emperor who was dead-set on expansion into the Middle East was Nikephoros II Phokas. At least with Alexios's recovery of Anatolia they had help and there were even people who remembered Constantinopolitan rule. Egypt hasn't known it for almost 500 years, Syria slightly longer. Furthermore if Egypt is ruled by Latin Christians then they'll likely have allies.
Historically speaking the Romans couldn't handle the Latin powers and while there's not nearly as much bad blood as historically, trying to seize Egypt and the Levant is a surefire way to do just that.
Indeed, any attempt by the Byzantine Empire to destroy the Crusader State, even if it doesn't invites an alternate-Fourth Crusade, would certainly be a shot in one's own foot, and one action the Byzantines won't be keen on doing.
Will Church influence start to wane? I don't just see that happening on short notice. Maybe in the long term, but not "[shortly] after the Mongols", which is the broad time-frame under discussion. If you are suggesting some Byzantine neo-Imperialism centuries down the line, sure. That could certainly happen. But that's just guesswork at this stage, because of the butterflies...
If an Orthodox power seeks to take control of a lot of hard-won Catholic lands at any point in pre-modern times, then that will be grounds for a Crusade, and damn big one. For religious reasons (losing Jerusalem without a fight would be unthinkable), but also for economic and strategic ones. If you do take Egypt, and are busy re-taking North Africa, do you want that "Empire of Christendom"-ideal to be shattered by some interloper? I think not. Especially not since they'd be aiming at Egypt (which is still pretty vital to Indian ocean trade and therefore economically valuable).
Agreed too.
I think a key question is going to be the balance of naval power. At this time, and from the story, it seems the Byzantines and Italians are on fairly even footing; OTL however, it wasn't very far from the Venetians and Normans freely sailing anywhere that wasn't the Aegean against Byzantine opposition (and of course, eventually even the Aegean wasn't safe).
If a similar balance of naval power develops, Syria and especially Egypt will be well beyond the Byzantine ability to hold, even if they may seize it for a time a local ambitious governor could easily just declare independence, in fact if not always in name.
Similarly no Catholic power could hold Egypt, but then they're not looking to hold Egypt themselves - just the vague 'Catholic Europe' holding it will be their (actually possible) target.
I concur. It is a topic, in fact, I want to explore in later chapters, the idea of a Byzantine/Italian condominium in the Mediterranean, and how this impacts in the attempted conquests of Egypt.
I really wonder what happens when the Mongols come crashing in.
Blobbing and border gore, for sure. Islam as a whole will suffer a terrible blow, which will make the fall of the Levant seem like a walk in the park.
Followed by The Khan Awakens, The Last Norman and The Rise of Christendom. On a more serious note, I do expect some form of confrontation between the Latin East/West and Byzantium somewhere down the road, once that the Sunni powers have been marginalized. Perhaps in the years leading to the alt-Mongols there will be a war?
It will be the subject of the fifth Act. Just wait for it
I don't think that there will or can be a Mongolian Empire. Considering how absolutely ASB Genghis truly was and that there hasn't been someone like him ever before or after. You could though have a great turkish warlord who unites the Turkish tribes and becomes a Seljuk 2.0. Any horse nomadic super confederation is a treat to the settled societies during this era.
As
@Skallagrim says above, we can work with many possibilities, it all depends on what I call the "butterfly regime". You can have, for example:
(1) absolute chaos theory or random causality - that is, different fecundations leading to different persons, different battles producing different wars, different social and economic developments, and so forth |
(2) direct causation, with accumulation - the POD initially affects only a relevant period and area, and gradually accumulates as time passes: the world becomes increasingly different, and, eventually, we reach a sort of ATL Singularity, when the alternate world is alien to us |
(3) direct causation, but with very restricted butterflies - the POD only affects a defined period and area, but its changes won't be too significant to the rest of the world. There are many other possibilities (and, as many novelists do, you
can simply ignore butterflies altogether).
ITTL, I'm working with Number 2 above. This explains why events in Europe and in the Near East are already liable to change, but not those in Sub-Saharan Africa, in the Americas and in Far Asia, for example.
yeah, I could see conflict over southern Italy and the Balkans, but that won't cause the conflict to happen just tension it will condense until Egypt when they could splinter off, if it happens before the Mongol invasion and restart of the alliance over again, if after then they won't unite until Arabia is united under Yemen, or Omen, or both. Oh and don't forget the roman menace, attack of the Christians, revenge of Muslims, and a Christian hope
An Arabic union in reaction to the Crusader expansionism is another concept I'm interesting in exploring, although I've yet to work out the details.
well, I would've agreed with you if only Rdffigueira didn't say that he was basically going to create the biggest butterfly genocide ever that I've heard (which isn't that much).
Ironically enough, the "biggest butterfly genocide" would happen, if we butterfly away the appearance of what has been argued to be one of the most genocidal expansionist empires. Now that's a treat!
Because alternate history is more interesting when you compare the changes you have made to the straight line of history. If your story is about how the middle east during the middle ages would have turned out if the crusades had been more successful then one of the questions that raises is how that kingdom would cope with the Mongols. If instead you just go well for reasons outside the narrative that never happened and the greatest threat to these kingdoms just never arose, that's narratively unsatisfying.
I agree completely. This, in a nutshell, is the direction I'm trying to take the TL one.
I am not saying that a nomadic horse Archer threat shouldn't be there, what I am saying is that it shouldn't be Mongolian or Genghis Khan. There was never another conquest dynasty other then Qing who became one of the great legitimate Chinese Dynasties. Mongolians weren't even a majority on the steppe that was Turks... More realistic to have a great Turkish nomad Khan who will most likely be as brutal as the Mongolian not just as though against his enemies.
While I understand your point and agree to some point, I'd also have to argue that this too creates another layer of "burden of proof" regarding the plausibility of such a divergence, and, from a purely narrative literary standpoint, it also creates the problem of having a thinly veiled parallelism ("wait, so these Turks are
like the Mongols, right?"), and this, to any reader who knows how things developed IOTL, create expectations that might be frustrated. Of course, we could have the opposite effect: we work with the idea of an alternate Turkic conqueror, as per your example, that becomes even more interesting to work with, contextually speaking, than simply replicating the Mongol conquests as IOTL.
As I've said again some times before, this is still a work in progress. I really don't want to sound like one of those artsy writers, but, in my heart, I believe that, to some point, the story does writes itself, and I try to devise how, in the realm of plausibility (according to OTL and to the premises established in the alt-TL itself), it would develop.
This has been suggested many times on the thread, and who would get the throne for Africa and Marocco, etc... but I've been interested in the demographics of all of this. I think it's safe to say that we won't be seeing any African Reich, but instead, the more westward the rump African Kingdoms are the more Spaniards and Portuguese will settle. It might be a stretch, but we might see the survival of the Mozarabic and Andalusi Arab. Furthermore, Lybia, ITTL "Africa" would be mainly settled by Italians. Egypt would still have a large number of Arabs, so more copts this time around?
Yes, I intend to explore this: the formation of Frankish-influenced Maghrebi entities.
The integration between Franks and Egyptian Copts, on the other hand, is almost a given tool, considering the Copts will be favored in a Frankish regime.
As far as I know the Steppe produced plenty of Warlords. Genghis Khan was the greatest, the Seljuks and Timurids were second tier (for the mid-east), and it falls off from there... but Genghis Khan to me was more the pinnacle of a trend, rather than something unique. And nothing in the story so far stops the trend, so there will still be a bunch of steppe conquerors and one of them will be the greatest one who affects Iran, China, and Russia, and many others will affect one of the three. Still, it could be that the greatest Mongol warlord only affects China, while the greatest Turkish one affects them all.
Genghis Khan is God tier. He is alone there. No other leader wether settled or nomadic is next to him. He is a strategic master mind, the biggest pull yourself upp from the bootstraps story ever. And is able to create a stable succession to his heir. He is also from one of the less populated people's. The great majority of the steppe People were Turks at this time. Seljuk, Attila, and Timurid were A class leaders. Not second tier. One doesn't create a nomadic steppe empire with anything less.
Agreed with both!
A pizza without Cheese isn't a pizza...It's just bread with tomato sauce. (Assuming the person in question isn't lactose intolerant in which case...non-lactose cheese?)
Pizza without cheese is not pizza, period. And God might save us from this abomination.
There's always Temujin's father Yesugei, the de facto leader of the Khamag Mongols. He was only 37 when he was assassinated. Had he not been poisoned by the Tatars according to The Secret History of the Mongols, it's likely he would've united the Mongol tribes under his authority. As an alternative (out of many), there's the Qara Khitai or Western Liao. It was a steppe empire of the Khitans that took the trappings of the Chinese imperial state and brought it to Central Asia. They followed a mixture of Buddhist and animist traditions though a noticeable minority were Nestorian Christians. It is because of them was China were referred to as Cathay by medieval Europeans.
Yeah, I've some in store for the Qara-Khitai. They will play a significant role later on. On the other hand, I also considered to have more successful Khwarazmians in the absence of a Mongol invasion. Just an idea, of course...
And I've not forgotten about Yesugei, but I'm not sure if he might have "pulled a Genghis" before his actual son. The circumstances were so contrived that it took very specific paths of causality.
Assuming this army is organized well enough and can make use of Roman logistics, they should be able to reach Mosul. There is no way for the crusaders to hold onto it, but after all this sacking and raiding, if they take Mosul they in all probability reduce it to a ruin in return and call it justice.
Mosul is indeed very well beyond their "we can keep it" reach, and to close for the Seljuqs to be a comfortable spot to sit on.